Crazy World c & c

thebaz

I havn't put anything here in ages - but brought a film camera to aslan last week- end - no-flash - does it work ?

sineadw

I like the blur and the grain, but it looks like his shirt is the point of focus in the first 2?

fuzzywuzzy1

I love the grain and style of these......I think they suit Christy very well:)

Dodgykeeper

Do they work? No!

Am sure christy and the lads have loads of oof pics from years gone by!

Covey

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

Do they work? No!

Am sure christy and the lads have loads of oof pics from years gone by!

Not sure your'e right though. They have that "it" for me. Have no other explanation ...

CabanSail

I am afraid that they don't work for me either. The first one is close but the focus really needs to be on the eyes & not the shirt, which ruins the shot. The second just looks muddy & soft with the subject on the wrong side of the frame & a highlight to the right drawing the eye out of the frame.

It could be that I am not familiar with the subject & do not know anything about Aslan.

There is also a factor that I ussually really like Barry's work, but when looking at an image for C&C I try to look just at the image presented. You of course take into account any other information supplied.

What if these images were posted from someone we did not know asking for C&C for their first attempt at using film? What would you say then?

DaireQuinlan

CabanSail wrote: »

What if these images were posted from someone we did not know asking for C&C for their first attempt at using film? What would you say then?

Well in fairness, your objections above have zero to do with the fact that it's film. I mostly agree with them, although I actually kinda like the overall effect. One thing I will say is that, irrespective of the content, the -tone- of the pictures is spot on, they're miles and away better than any of those B&W conversions from Baz. I always felt that was a weak point.

AnCatDubh

I like #2 from this set, #3 I don't like and #1 is one I could leave.

Unless there was a particular reason for #1 and #3 looking as they do, then I'd wonder as to their value. Having said that beauty will be in the eye of the beholder here and if they float your own boat then sure why not.

#1 might work for me in a square crop perhaps.

thebaz

thanks all (bar dodgyKeeper usual constructive input ) -

I took on board Sineads criticism , and feal image 2 doesn't work for me, now ancatdubh has confused me :-)

AnCatDubh

Just on #2; I love the sahdow on left hand side of face (as I look at it) and the pushed / forced overexposure on the righthand side. That combined with a look that probably only Christy can give makes it for me. Nice indeed.

RCNPhotos

Can't see pic 2 for some reason so I can only comment on the the first and third.

First I like but the focus ust ruins it for me. But I like the tone.

On the third the again the focus just ruins it for me.

Where was the gig Baz?

Covey

Ditto, can only see two pics

AnimalRights

2 pics here too.
out of the 2 I see I would go for the heavy grained one with chirsty looking to the left, so I disagree with Cabansail that you need the crop the other side, sometimes it's good to try the opposite...

democrates

Can only see 2

#1 works for me, the high contrast gives that Che Guevara type vibe and it's like the aul wretch after a life of producing great art among other contributions to counter the ugliness in the world is finally looking up to the light of salvation

#3 I've seen sharper shots taken by a 4 year old. I don't mean that in a shallow way, I've just taken delivery of strobes and backdrops to compliment my 21Mp 5Dii and 85mm f1.2 L ii so I can take it to the 'next' level, but the kind of pixel perfect controlled shot I'm after is not the holy grail, it's just one type of photography. From social events the favourite shots tend to be the candids, one of those eureka moments was when I first looked at a shot and thought "almost but dammit I fooked up the dof" only to realise that it would have lost its appeal had I got it 'right'. Similarly with the lack of information in a shot creating tension. So for #3 I'd say the quick and dirty approach fits the subject and the scene, a hazy memory of one instant in life.

CabanSail that was an interesting point there, there can seem to be an element of cheerleading the kings new clothes at times, it's also been discussed before that over time having seen the journey any given tog takes our perceptions are coloured when we see the latest shot and I think that's fair enough too, it's good to remember that new arrivals also have a life story that can be reflected in their work. There are none so blind etc, but deliberately limiting our perception can be interesting too, in a way perception is not unlike composition.

thebaz

Sorry - image 2 should be back now -

RCN - venue was Purty (Dun laoghaire) -

Democrates - For the 3rd shot the location was a dimly lit room , like a venue Janer would be used to for his fav. bands - I don't use flash, and am still experimenting with film -

thanks guys (and girls)

Tallon

Don't like these photos at all, they do nothing for me at all.

democrates

#2 he's only missing nuts and bolts on his neck! Another nice punchy one

thebaz wrote: »

Democrates - For the 3rd shot the location was a dimly lit room , like a venue Janer would be used to for his fav. bands - I don't use flash, and am still experimenting with film -

Yeah been there with the film and no flash. I was deliberately misleading in opening that paragraph, hopefully people get the actual gist, but just in case, I like the shot because it breaks rules and still delivers something, not least of which is a happy smile.

Wouldn't give a second thought to feedback based on "don't like it because it's not x" which says more about the priorities of the commenter than what the shot is.

mobileblog

There’s something about these especially 1 and 3. For some reason i automatically thought of Joy Division and the song Dead Souls when i seen them.
I particularly like number 3 but it’s hard to put my finger on it. It’ could be a number of things, maybe because its dark, it’s gritty, maybe it’s the grooves in the wall, but it could be the look and closeness.

AnCatDubh

right, these have been playing on my mind all day and i've reverted back to them this evening. I think while I commented earlier on individual images and said "Unless there was a particular reason", I only considered them as individual images. My thoughts during the day are that there is a particular reason and that reason is as a documentary set and hence i'm now thinking they actually do work in this context.

I still think there are flaws which when presented as individual images won't garner certain appeal, however my thinking during the day and reviewing them again now; I offer the opinion that as a photographic series they do actually work.

I hope that makes sense. Earlier comment stands but this hopefully completes the circle for my comment.

Nice one actually

Dodgykeeper

I to have revisited these photos to see if I have missed anything, but no I dont think I have, they are too oof, too grainy and in my opinion badly composed!

I am of the opinion that if these were posted by any body else and of a subject that nobody knows they would have had a totally different reaction here.

Now my judgement may be clouded by my opinion that using a film camera is akin to ignoring the shiny self propelled lawn mower in my shed and cutting the grass with a shears!

AnimalRights

hehe to the point about modern vs old.

thebaz

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

I

I am of the opinion that if these were posted by any body else and !

for some reason you have a serious attitude with me , for what I don't know - I don't comment on your images , and I could be spitefull if i wanted , re blandness of subject matter- the main reason I stopped posting here was your good self - I want criticism - neg and pos - negative criticsm helps me develop - but not spitefull ****e

Dodgykeeper

thebaz wrote: »

for some reason you have a serious attitude with me , for what I don't know - I don't comment on your images , and I could be spitefull if i wanted , re blandness of subject matter- the main reason I stopped posting here was your good self - I want criticism - neg and pos - negative criticsm helps me develop - but not spitefull ****e

Oh Baz, I dont have a serious attitude with you, I think the recent images you posted were not up to your usual standard, Tallon and Cabansail also said they did not like them as did AnCatDubh before he changed his mind.

The time and place for you to C&C my images is when I put them up for c&c not when you put yours and I dont like them.

I have a thread here for c&c at the minute I will bump it up, do your worst!

AnCatDubh

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

AnCatDubh before he changed his mind.

I think you should re-read my posts as you appear to be being too selective in your quoting of me.

Dodgykeeper

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I think you should re-read my posts as you appear to be being too selective in your quoting of me.

Whats with all the paranoia here today?

thebaz

dodgy - if you have no attitude with me fair eneogh - i'll accept it and move on

Valentia

There is something classic and nostalgic about these shots. The beautiful grain that can only be got through the use of film blows the pixelated high ISO of digital out of the water. Film still is in so many ways, vastly superior to digital. It would be impossible to create the feel and athmosphere that you have done here with digital It would just look, well digital and false I suppose.

Ok, the focus may not be where the so called experts think it should be but sure that's the whole point, isn't it FFS.
The thrill of pushing film to its limit is soething I miss. Pushing during he taking and then pushing it that bit furthr than you know you should in developing and getting a result is exilerating.

Everyone should try it at least once. Then they might realise how silly some of the comments here look.

sineadw

Valentia wrote: »

Ok, the focus may not be where the so called experts think it should be but sure that's the whole point, isn't it FFS.
The thrill of pushing film to its limit is soething I miss. Pushing during he taking and then pushing it that bit furthr than you know you should in developing and getting a result is exilerating.

Everyone should try it at least once. Then they might realise how silly some of the comments here look.

I'm going to simultaneously agree and disagree with you here

I love film. I agree completely that there is a lot to it that digital still goes nowhere near. I'm doing a lot of film stuff at the moment and loving every bit of it. I too think everyone should learn a little about it and try it at least once. I'm not sure if you ever have DK, but if you haven't you should try it before you knock it!

About the focus issue - I'm a great lover of out of focus stuff. Especially in music photography. I'm not a focus nazi and I think blur adds greatly to stuff sometimes. The areas that are OOF here I love. I just think its a pity that there are bits *in* focus. Focussed areas naturally draw the eye (I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I think that's established fact - its the way the eye and brain work together). I just think its a pity that the whole thing's not out, on the first one in particular. Or just a bit more out maybe. It was my first thought on seeing them.

Edit : on second look, maybe its just the bloody shirt that's dominant? the crop/orientation works much better on the second to my eye.

Valentia

I might have gone in a bit strong on the focus bit Sinead. I can't disagree with you though. Still, I really love the retro feel off them. Old box brownie (wirhout the square crop) memories even.

thebaz

cheers Danny -

My favorite is number 3 - it reminds me more of a charcoal - sure theres loads of imperfection , and I can see it would be not be everyones cup of tea - i particularly like the shade of the background - there you go opinions are lke ******* - we all have them -

my fav rock photo is still London Calling , and that has serious imperfections

AnimalRights

thebaz wrote: »

my fav rock photo is still London Calling , and that has serious imperfections

For the uneducated, picture by Pennie Smith who was their main Photographer.

thebaz

thats the one - its great to have things we can try to aspire to

KarmaGarda

I've looked at this a few times to try figure out what I thought. I don't know thebaz so I can speak pretty unbiased on the matter!

I can see what you were going for here, but for me it didn't work. Originally I hadn't a clue what you were trying, but looking at the londons calling photo (thanks for the link AR) it puts it into perspective. For me, sometimes imperfections make the photo, but sometimes they don't. Pennie Smiths photo is a perfect example of this. Feet chopped off, noisy, out of focus, rubbish detail on the guitar... all of these actually make it an exceptional photo.

In regards to yours, out of the three #2 was the closest both compositionally and "interestingness" wise to have "it". Unfortunately I don't find the guy very photogenic, so that's a big draw back for me. Also, his expression is almost as if he was aware of the photograph. It just doesn't make me believe it's a true candid of the artist.

I look at your photosream and see a photo with heaps of imperfections like this and I love it:



The fact that it's slightly overexposed, a little too tightly framed, doesn't show all of the flute/whistle, all of this makes the photo and why I like it.

It's a pity, because I really want to like the photos, but I'm not 100% sold.

No offense meant, just my humble opinion. Which is probably a heap of shoyte anyway!

Fenster

I'm just not seeing what you do in the images, I'm afraid.

Valentia

KarmaGarda wrote: »

The fact that it's slightly overexposed, a little too tightly framed, doesn't show all of the flute/whistle, all of this makes the photo and why I like it.

Oh dear! This is what makes this place so interesting. Jazuz can you imagine how utterly boring it would be if it was as perfect as you suggest . In other words it's not overexposed, is not too tightly cropped and jolly well does not need all of his flute hanging out!

AnimalRights

At this stage it looks like Barry's picture has worked in a way as half like it and half don't.
If everyone liked it it would mean Barry has did a mainstream technically normal picture!!

Like ancatdubh I've looked at these for a good few times now and while 1st 2 do nowt for me, #3 is becoming a 2nd skin.

KarmaGarda

Valentia wrote: »

Jazuz can you imagine how utterly boring it would be if it was as perfect as you suggest .

Think you're misintrepetting me? Maybe I should have quote "imperfections". What I was saying was breaking the "rules" which you usually learn when starting out in photography is a good thing. But this only works in certain photographs. For these it doesn't. For Pennie Smiths photo it does.

Again, it's just my opinion.

Valentia

I get where you're coming from and understand what you mean re rules.

AnimalRights

I always thought KarmaGarda was a female cop/poster and now that I've found out he wasn't my world is not as a happy place.

rahtkennades

I think somebody posted to say they might look better with a square crop? I just did a little framing with my hands, and they definitely seem to.

The first one, as was mentioned the point of focus is on his shirt. Also the shirt is so bright that it kills the rest of the shot, his face is lost. If you crop square (keep the same width but crop around the collar), his face becomes a lot more focus, and it's a fairly low-key, out of focus shot. For me that works a lot better.

The second, maybe you could do the same, but it would just look a bit...the same I guess!

The third, I still can't figure after two days of looking at it, but I'm drawn back to it, so yeah, I like it!

Overall I think it's good work! Well done.

thebaz

AnimalRights wrote: »

At this stage it looks like Barry's picture has worked in a way as half like it and half don't.
.

i guess your right - a negative reaction is better than no-reaction - and if everyone liked it, it would be blando blando

DaireQuinlan

thebaz wrote: »

and if everyone liked it, it would be blando blando

Or just really good

humberklog

I'm not really seeing and never noticed any imperfections on the London Calling album. I'd have been looking too as it has become a rather iconic image with a stronger message than The Clash could ever get across in their music. I always thought they were on the "posh punk" end of the spectrum musically but did at least stick this excellent snap on their sleeve.
I'm really not getting the connection between the OP's shot and this one with regards to critical comparison. Sure there's grain, sure bits out of focus but I think that's about it (hardly impefections in most peoples book I would have thought but rather tools to be used to try and create the perfect pic surely?).
I think what the OP has are 3 handy little snaps that you'd quickly stop to peruse (if it was your own roll) while going through the 36 exp. but they wouldn't warrant much more than that. I know I'd be hoping for better results to pop up in a roll of 36. Maybe hoping for a more blurred picture, maybe clearer, maybe grainier, maybe more defined. Just something...more?
But these pics could certainly fall into the category of "pics that only a mother could love". And sure don't they love all their children?

thebaz

humberklog wrote: »

I think what the OP has are 3 handy little snaps

aghhh - a snapshop -- **** it I like them more, the more people dislike them

humberklog

thebaz wrote: »

aghhh - a snapshop -- **** it I like them more, the more people dislike them

There you go!!!:pac:.
I was curious mostly as to why you'd pop them on a seperate C+C thread and not simply wallop them (well maybe No.2) into the random thread if you felt they were worth showing around the schoolyard.
Makes sense now...good skills in the exploring methods of self encouragement stakes.

Nothing wrong with snapshots...99% of mine would be just that...oh hang on...hmmm.

trishw78

I like 1 & 2 keep working on the film I think your developing a really nice style.

Teferi

I really like the first one. I like the way the focus is on his shirt and himself seems to be fading out. The imperfections of the photo that people seem to be mentioning kind of sum up Christy himself so it's pretty apt imo.

thebaz

theres the square crop of 1

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebaz/4067915555/

Chorcai

thebaz wrote: »

theres the square crop of 1

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebaz/4067915555/

I think the square crop really suits that picture.

rahtkennades

thebaz wrote: »

theres the square crop of 1

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebaz/4067915555/

Yeah, I like!

shepthedog

I'd like to know what Baz's thoughts were when he was shooting them.. I am just curious as to what he was aiming for? This might help me get a better understanding of what the goal was for the set.

I will make an admission, I dont shoot film and have a curious respect for people who do. I would probably never have had the patience to get into photography if I had to shoot film. But, I also think film has a time and a place and this isnt it. People do seem to be clouded by the Baz and his work, and on this occasion I think if a random poster had put these up they could have got a very different (negative) reaction. At the end of the day its all about peoples perception of shots and theres no right or wrong way to view an image but this set wouldnt be something I would like.